FFG X who will win

[Kapitan]

With the FFG X program gaining momentum I decided to have a brief look at the design proposals and the Navy brief.

This article I think sums up my position and details in brief who I think is likely to win the competition.

Now of course we don’t know who is to win just yet but this is an opinion piece based on my own views, granted you will all have different views on the subject and it is this i would like to explore.

https://www.immortalwordsmith.co.uk/...e-competition/

[Mike Abberton]

I am not sure which company will win, but based on recent history, I know who loses.

The US taxpayer and probably the Navy (although they mostly have themselves to blame).

Mike

[Jimbuna]

For me, the FFG X winner is the General Dynamics; the vessel already meets the constraints of the design brief issued by the US Navy and the F100 (or Alvaro de Bazan design) already has a 32 cell MK41 launcher capable of operating both the ESSM & SM series missiles. The design also has two quad launchers for harpoon missiles and most important of all, it is already equipped with the Aegis warfare system and subsequent SPY 1D Radars making it fully capable (with slight modification) to integrate with the current fleet.

I'd have to agree....already ticks all the boxes.

[Commander Wallace]

Detailed article, as usual. The General Dynamics design as mentioned has a formidable array of weapons and sensors. Any vessel chosen will have to meet certain requirements, I'm sure.




Great article.

[Skybird]

General Dynamics - if for no other reason than the looks.

[Kapitan]

Thanks gents

If I’m honest skybird I’m a little bit likening the FREMM but I know it has it’s short comings

I think if they chose the FREMM there would be delays and cost over runs for sure

[ikalugin]

What is the most expensive and worst equiped ship?

[Kapitan]

Personally I’d say the zumwalts

[Skybird]

This blind trust into the superiority of only highest tech at the highest buying cost, leads too far these days. It ignores the wartime relevance of numbers and reserves - and that you need to be capable to digest own losses. As they say in boxing: its not only about how many blows you can deliver, it also is about how often you can stand up again.

[Kapitan]

Indeed the USN has the technology and blind faith in it, but if we look back in history sometimes the simplest and cheapest solutions have worked far better than any technology.

A vintage bi plane crippled Bismarck

the T36 sloped its armor making it harder to penetrate and was much simpler than any German design.

a simple rubber skirt around the tanks side stopped the dust from the desert clogging up the engines

sometimes those who fail to learn the lessons of history will be doomed to repeat it are very apt.

[Skybird]

Yes ^, but I am mostly about the reserves that allow you to digest losses and I am about that even the most capable ship canot be in more than just one places at a time. Same is true for fighters, submarines, ground units... Superiority in technology and skill can compensate for being outnumbered or needing to cover a too big playground only so far - and not further.

And then there is the downtime of systems due to maintenace and servicing and repairs.

On global population and ecological and sustainable ressource management issues I usually say "We are too many", but on Western military numbers I say "We are too few".


Then - leaving the frame of this topic a bit, but just to complete this one point of "too small numbers" - inter-dependencies in supply chains due to globalization of economies - a nightmare. A pest of a misled financial supply system impacting on nations' ability to even just sustain bigger militaries (they cannot anymore, obviously). There will come a time in this century when the global security and stability situation will seriously topple. The political situation already is in decline, regarding stability and military risks.